The end is near!

[sweetheart-mine]

Well to me that misses the whole point of how ridiculous that statement is. Taxes pay for infrastructure. The infrastructure we need. No one ever says, "I believe my landlord will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would." Why? Because it is accepted that you pay for services. People seem to have this idea that government, military, roads, bridges and every other form of infrastructure that our taxes pay for just happens. And the government is just taking money for the hell of it because they don't trust us with our own money. I'm all for more fiscal responsibility in Washington, but BOTH parties have proven they aren't very good at that. Therefore our government needs funding and I'd rather pay as we go than continue to borrow from China.

 

of course. i agree with everything you say here. it doesn't mean that some of our tax money -- sometimes huge amounts (e.g., iraq) -- isn't wasted by washington politicians, including republicans. i think that's about as obvious as is our need for taxes to pay for infrastructure and services.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Only the first 25% is patriotic. After that, it's Communist.

What if 25% doesn't cut it? Do we borrow and pass the debt to our children?

 

of course. i agree with everything you say here. it doesn't mean that some of our tax money -- sometimes huge amounts (e.g., iraq) -- isn't wasted by washington politicians, including republicans. i think that's about as obvious as is our need for taxes to pay for infrastructure and services.

 

No doubt. Both parties have their wasteful spending, but one person's waste is another's essential project. That's the problem. Even well-meaning politicians trying to represent their constituents are going to work for govt spending that someone in some other political district will think is unnecessary. You can't please everyone. Hopefully we will learn to live within our means, but we can't pass that "wish" off to future generations blindly either.

[ikol]

What if 25% doesn't cut it? Do we borrow and pass the debt to our children?

 

Or stop spending so damn much.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Or stop spending so damn much.

See above.

[Central Scrutinizer]

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, which is why I said that I was completely kidding. These are complicated issues and complicated times, and I think that everyone who works hard in this country should be able to live with a sense of comfort and security.

 

that is with all honesty.

God bless you Mr. Rosewater!

[ikol]

See above.

 

I did.

[Moe_Syzlak]

I did.

I edited my post. Your response was there by the time I finished my edit. Either you didn't see the edit or you don't think, after seeing the edit, that it addresses your issue sufficiently. If it is the latter, please elaborate as I'm confused on your recommendation for a better solution.

[Lammycat]

Doesn't pretty much every generation pass the debt to the next one? Has it ever been solved? Will there ever be a day where the debt is actually wiped clean? If we just keep passing the buck for eternity we're good, right?

[ikol]

Oh, my bad. I think that many programs you probably consider to be essential are not.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Oh, my bad. I think that many programs you probably consider to be essential are not.

Well that's the point! I don't consider every program essential but the electorate isn't made up of just me. Eliminating all the spending I feel is wasteful is totally unrealistic, just as eliminating all the spending you feel is wasteful is unrealistic. So, given that, what do you do? Do you continue to try to tighten the government spending belt? Of course! But that isn't going to magically happen and both parties have proven incapable of doing that. So, in the meantime, what do we do? Do we build the deficit or do we increase revenue? A lot of you conservatives call liberals idealists as if it is some slight. But the idea that we can be this magically fiscally responsible government to EVERYONE and have non-existent taxes is equally as pie-in-the-sky idealistic.

[Guest Jules]

Doesn't pretty much every generation pass the debt to the next one? Has it ever been solved? Will there ever be a day where the debt is actually wiped clean? If we just keep passing the buck for eternity we're good, right?

You ask a lot of questions.

[Guest Jules]

I would like to say that Tim Robbins was rivaling Bill Maher for the craziest fuck on his own show tonight. I get that Bush is bad and a lot don't like McCain, but Jesus Christ, some of the shit coming out of their mouths was amazing. Do they listen to what they are saying?

[mountain bed]

Well that's the point! I don't consider every program essential but the electorate isn't made up of just me. Eliminating all the spending I feel is wasteful is totally unrealistic, just as eliminating all the spending you feel is wasteful is unrealistic. So, given that, what do you do? Do you continue to try to tighten the government spending belt? Of course! But that isn't going to magically happen and both parties have proven incapable of doing that. So, in the meantime, what do we do? Do we build the deficit or do we increase revenue? A lot of you conservatives call liberals idealists as if it is some slight. But the idea that we can be this magically fiscally responsible government to EVERYONE and have non-existent taxes is equally as pie-in-the-sky idealistic.

 

What do you think of these dudes? The verdict's still out on them for me.

[kwall]

But that isn't going to magically happen and both parties have proven incapable of doing that. So, in the meantime, what do we do?

elect third-party candidates.

[Moe_Syzlak]

elect third-party candidates.

In fact I did vote for a local Libertarian. But the idea that someone like Bob Barr is A) going to get elected and B ) going to solve everything is also unrealistic in my opinion. Libertarian ideals sound great on paper, but are totally unworkable in reality. I shouldn't say TOTALLY, but all sorts of systems sound good on paper. Libertarianism hasn't been tested on a large scale, nor have other third party systems. As popular as it is to lay the blame at the feet of the two party system (and I do wish there was more competition), I see the idea that IF ONLY a third party could win the election, everything would be better to be totally naive. I want more choices, as I said, but I am going to work for those third party candidates that I believe in locally. Hopefully some will prove themselves, gain support and win national seats. And maybe, in my lifetime we'll see real choice. For me, the yahoos running for President on third party tickets aren't the answer.

[kwall]

. . . both parties have proven incapable . . .

. . . third party tickets aren't the answer.

i guess we're just fucked then.

 

 

 

http://www.baldwin08.com/

[Moe_Syzlak]

i guess we're just fucked then.

 

 

 

http://www.baldwin08.com/

Chuck Baldwin!?! Okay, we're not going to agree then.

 

You can say "we're just fucked," but that's not how i see it. I see it that supporters of both parties insist on their parties feeding them a line of bull in order to get elected. I think we need to be realistic and realistically, third parties need to be grown from the bottom up and the existing parties don't have magic wands.

 

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Quincy Adams

[kwall]

You can say "we're just fucked," but that's not how i see it.

i was being facetious.

[Beltmann]

I support a breakdown of the two-party system, so I'm always rooting for third party candidates to make a dent. This year, though, none of the alternative candidates better represent my values than one of the major party candidates, so there's no compelling reason for me to cast a symbolic vote.

[Edie]

I am standing in line to vote right now!!111!!

[lost highway]

In fact I did vote for a local Libertarian. But the idea that someone like Bob Barr is A) going to get elected and B ) going to solve everything is also unrealistic in my opinion. Libertarian ideals sound great on paper, but are totally unworkable in reality. I shouldn't say TOTALLY, but all sorts of systems sound good on paper. Libertarianism hasn't been tested on a large scale, nor have other third party systems. As popular as it is to lay the blame at the feet of the two party system (and I do wish there was more competition), I see the idea that IF ONLY a third party could win the election, everything would be better to be totally naive. I want more choices, as I said, but I am going to work for those third party candidates that I believe in locally. Hopefully some will prove themselves, gain support and win national seats. And maybe, in my lifetime we'll see real choice. For me, the yahoos running for President on third party tickets aren't the answer.

 

 

I find the Libertarian agenda to be nothing more than a more fair and even-handed application of Reagan-nomics. Preserving peoples freedom and reducing the size of the government significantly sounds just fine. But, as with Libertarian's more unrealistic and aggressive cousin (the Anarchist) I think the potential for very negative effects is there.

[laurie]

I am standing in line to vote right now!!111!!

 

 

Wish we could vote early!

[kwall]

Libertarian ideals sound great on paper, but are totally unworkable in reality.

what we have now is totally unworkable.

 

Libertarianism hasn't been tested on a large scale . . .

it worked pretty well here for the first hundred years or so. at least up until the 16th amendment was ratified.

[uncool2pillow]

A friend sent this to me:

 

[lost highway]

it worked pretty well here for the first hundred years or so. at least up until the 16th amendment was ratified.

 

But look at what kind of society the federal government has to manage now. There are logistic elements that are much more complex. There are many theoretical forms of government that can work effectively over a population of a certain size. Anarchism, or more simply a total egalitarian system can work pretty well in a band of a couple dozen people living together. It breaks down once the population increases, and they are exchanging money and so on. I don't mean to say that Libertarianism is as extreme as anarchism, it is just an example.